One Miserably Failed State

The Ukrainian elites, which receive upon the division of the Soviet inheritance everything necessary for the successful state building, by their own actions brought the country to the brink of a collapse.

Ideal starting conditions

Politics and history are not pre-determined. The “project Ukraine” living its last days was not doomed from the start.

Suddenly emerged new country had the world’s 10th economy. It housed on its territory 40% of the Soviet military industry and 60% of the heavy industry. Well-developed agriculture was not only able to provide enough to cover domestic needs but also to actively export agricultural products. The network of the railroad and highways, long-distance pipelines, several large warm water ports more than covered the needs of the foreign trade but also had an almost unlimited potential for transit. The Ukraine’s population was 52 million, and the demographic dynamics in 1991-1992 was still positive. The country possessed highly trained work force, a well developed system of personnel training for the industry and agriculture, high quality scientific base. All these goods were protected by half a million-strong group of the Soviet Army – the largest in the USSR -armed with the most modern weapons, since it was deployed at the peak of the potential main offensive.

At the moment of becoming independent, Ukraine had a lot more than was necessary to build a successful state. Moreover, the geopolitical situation was also in its favor. The country did not have powerful enemies or even serious competitors. On the contrary, in 1992 the Ukrainian political leadership was happy to report the lack of external threats. The relationships with all neighbors were friendly, and the important world players themselves wished to be on good terms with Kiev. Let me remind you that in 1994-1996 the format G7+ was born that was used exclusively for the contacts with Moscow (G7+Russia) and Kiev (G7+Ukraine). However, the Russian format with time grew into the full-blown G8, whereas the Ukrainian dissipated in time and space, but in 1990s these formats were still equal.

There existed a small problem: Ukraine did not have enough energy sources to support its industry. Not of all kinds, but only of oil and gas. In spite of a relatively high level of domestic production – 4-5 million tons of oil (as much as Romania produces) and 20 billion cubic meters of gas (more, than produced in Azerbaijan) – Ukraine supported only about one fifth of its needs in oil and one quarter in gas. There existed theoretical possibilities to increase domestic production but they were neglected. Similarly neglected were opportunities to reduce the energy dependence of the industry.

However, Russia traditionally supplied the required amounts of oil and gas. Considering that 60-80% of the transit of Russian energy export in the 1990s went through the Ukrainian pipelines, it was not that difficult to agree on the mutually beneficial trade conditions. That was what Kuchma did signing in 2002 a ten-year agreement with “Gazprom” about the gas sale at $50 per thousand cubic meters. The contract was supposed to be valid until 2012 and provided the Ukrainian industry with huge competitive advantages on the world market, which (considering the rapid rise in the price of oil and gas) would only be increasing each year.

The considerable geopolitical and economic potential of Ukraine was also based on the dependence of its foreign trade and efficacy of its industry on the Russian energy resources, Russian markets, and Russian collaborators. In 1992-2003, Russia went through the political crisis of 1993, which came close to a full-scale civil war and led to a long-term split in the society, two Chechen wars, and a default of 1998. Absorbed in its internal problems complicated by increasing geopolitical conflicts with Euroatlantic partners, Russia needed minimal political loyalty of Kiev (Russia did not insist on anything more than neutrality) and was ready to pay (and paid) for it with serious economic concessions.

The today’s talk in Moscow about 35 billion dollars invested into the Ukrainian economy only considers the money that could be counted. This includes gifts of the low prices for oil and gas as well as credits on favorable terms and investments in joined projects. The losses Russia suffered from the most favored nation status (MFN) accorded to Ukraine and other indirect forms of supporting the Ukrainian economy cannot be calculated even theoretically (the expects quote the sums of 200-300 billion dollars but this is a speculative estimate).

Against the trend

How come that with such blessings Ukraine has reached the point when horrible end seems preferable to horror without end?

Much was said about the venality of the elites that literally burglarized the country. However, the valid question immediately arises: why 52 million people with misguided persistence keep putting in charge precisely that type of people? Why with all the differences between the leadership styles of Russian, Belorussian, and Kazakh elites, for them the sentence “the state interests” does mean something, whereas for the Ukrainian leaders this is at best something entirely incomprehensible? At worst, the reference to “the state interests” in Ukraine is nothing more than a way to deceive the population. How did that happen that millions happily agreed to be deceived, robbed, deprived of a future for the sake of some meaningless symbols totally alien to them – symbols that had nothing in common with either the Soviet civilization, from which these people emerged, or with the European civilization, which they supposedly dreamed of joining, or, most importantly, with real life?

In my opinion, the answer to these questions lies in one essential and quite obvious difference between the principles of the state building adopted in Ukraine and those espoused by the Russian, Belorussian, and Kazakh elites. In the last three cases, the states of citizens are being built. In Belorussia nationalistic parties lead miserable half-marginal existence. Only in the last three-four years, the official Minsk started to show demand for the loyal “state nationalism”, which, on the one hand, is contrasted with the nationalism of the opposition, and on the other hand, is meant to provide the Belorussian leadership with some basis to counteract the overwhelming Russian influence in EAEU.

In Kazakhstan, Kazakh nationalism is relatively strong but it is not structurally defined (as political parties) and is expressed mostly at the everyday life level and at the level of bureaucratic groups. However, such experienced statement as Nursultan Nazarbayev from the first days of the Kazakhstan independence recognized Kazakh nationalism as the most serious threat to stability, territorial integrity and the very existence of the country. A concept of Kazakhstan, as opposed to Kazakh, state was adopted. Nationalists had to be content with the dominance of “national personnel” in business and politics. However, that dominance was never absolute, and the rights of other nationalities, first of all, the Russians (Russian-speaking, Russian-culture) were protected by law. As far as Russia is concerned, nationalists there still lament that the imperial discourse in the Russian politics never yielded to the national one. That is, Russia was developing not as a national state of ethnic Russians but as a state of Russian citizens, and in the last years – of the Russian World.

Therefore, Moscow, Minsk and Astana achieved internal stability based on the compromise among nations linked to the renunciation of the nationalistic policies. The adequate internal policy made possible constructive compromise-based foreign policy. Despite all problems, from the mid-1990s Russia, Belorussia, and Kazakhstan were moving towards re-integration of the post-Soviet space based on new political, economic, and ideological realities.

From the first days of its existence, the Ukrainian state was being created as the state of the “title nation”. The national development was given priority, and then words attributed to count Cavour: “We have created Italy. Now we need to create Italians”, – were transformed by the Ukrainian nationalists into “We created Ukraine. Now we need to create Ukrainians”. Instead of the idea of equality of citizens, the concept of “positive discrimination” was adopted, with centuries of “oppression” used to explain the necessity to give priority to everything “Ukrainian”.

The union of post-Soviet bureaucrats and nationalists

From the firsts days of the state building in Ukraine, the Ukrainians nationalists found themselves in deep cognitive dissonance when the goals they declared were in sharp contrasts with the real aims and means used to achieve them. Simply put, they blatantly lied knowing full well that if they had said the truth about their true goals, not only they would have never be given power but would have hard time to stay in politics. The people of Ukraine would not have put up with them. In the early to mid-1990s, the Ukrainian population still retained high post-“perestroika” political activity not yet having turned into easily led mass as it happened in early 2000s.

It should be noted that hard-core nationalists, who had advocated such position even before the fall of the Soviet system, the nationalists, who had the right to declare that they indeed had fought for the Ukrainian independence, were a tiniest minority in the Ukrainian politics of the 1990s. Stepan Khmara, Levko Lukyanenko, Vyacheslav Chornovol, and Gorin brothers – those were pretty much all their known leaders. Organizations like the Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA) and Ukrainian People Self-defense (UPSD) were marginal and their members few. “People’s movement of Ukraine for the perestroika”, even having been transformed into “People’s movement of Ukraine” positioned itself as a broad democratic movement (albeit with a nationalistic flavor). Before the definition of the party structure, that was an amorphous political entity where radical nationalists rub shoulders with former communist opportunists (like Yavirivskiy and Pavlichko) as well as with the liberal intelligentsia.

The electorate was not particularly interested in nationalists, which habitually got 20-25% of the vote (on the average across the country). The nationalistic forces receive real political support only in the three regions of Galicia (Lvov, Ternopol, Ivanovo-Frankovsk). In all other regions even in the Western Ukraine they always collected less than 50% of the popular vote and in the regions of Novorossia – no more that 5-10%. In these conditions, nationalists would have to either remain in perpetual opposition or find themselves a strong ally. And such an ally was found.

Former party and Soviet state leaders, which renounced their past in order to preserve their positions, were at that time in search of an ideology that could support their right to stay in power. They already renounced the communist ideology and were scared of the reintegration rhetoric. They believed that reconstructions of the unified state would lead to restoration of the Moscow control over the provincial elites that would significantly restrict their ability to control the property located on the territory of Ukraine, including that used to belong to the Soviet Union. In some way, Ukraine fell victim to the richness of the Soviet inheritance. It seemed inexhaustible, and the Ukrainian elite was anxious to guard it against the former colleagues that received less. Any initiative regarding reintegration was not looked upon as an attempt to organize a mutually beneficial cooperation of the complementary economics but as an impingement of the elites from the neighboring republics coveting the Ukrainian share of the property.

Here the interests of the Ukrainian former communist party bosses and that of Ukrainian nationalists coincided. Nationalists wanted to build in a Russian country, which was Ukraine in early 1990s, a non-Russian state (at that time it was not yet planned as anti-Russian). The former communist party elite wanted their own state to safeguard their right to loot the property inherited from the USSR. Since all processes of post-Soviet integration could have nothing else but Moscow as their center (traditional political center + the territory tying together the European and Asian republics + unlimited natural resources), Russia objectively turned out to be an adversary for both nationalists and the state bureaucrats. Hence the popularity of the myth about the eternally oppressed nation struggling (obviously, against Russia) for centuries for its freedom. This was also the origin of the myth about the integration into the EU as the main route for the development of Ukraine. The Ukrainian politicians were not at all concerned about how realistic their projects of the EU membership were: the most important aim was to justify the refusal to participate in the post-Soviet integration projects by indicating a different direction.

The union of bureaucrats and nationalists has succeeded in pushing aside the influential left (socialists and communists). Internal career squabbles among the leaders of the Communist and Socialist parties played some role in that. Also, the actual control of the bureaucrats over the state mechanisms was important, as was a certain disillusionment of the population in the left ideology (the Soviet Union having just disintegrated). As a result, bureaucrats gained control over the economy and finances as well as the opportunity to enrich themselves without hindrance, whereas nationalist took over the ideological and cultural sphere (culture, science, education).

Nationalist-oligarchy symbiosis

During this twenty years, nationalists not only brainwashed two generations of students but the Nazi-nationalistic ideology has been absorbed in all areas where any type of educational process took place, including the army, the structures of the Ministry of Interior, Security Service of Ukraine, any military or police forces.

Initially, the Ukrainian nationalism was presented in a soft version. Specifically, until early 1990s nationalists recognized the dubious nature of the practices of Bandera Ukraine Insurgent Army (UIA) distinguishing it from the purely political Organization of Ukraine Nationalists (OUN). They even publicly condemned the activity during the Great Patriotic war of such formations of Ukrainian nationalists as battalions “Roland”, “Nachtigall”, division “Galitchina”, and of schutzmannschaft battalions. At the time, it was unthinkable not only to proclaim Bandera and Shukhevich the heroes of Ukraine but in any way positive political figures.

Only slowing with the emergence of new generations on the political arena, the emphasis began to shift. This was helped by the behavior of Russia, which, absorbed by the internal problems, essentially relinquished the fight in the Ukrainian informational space. By the mid-1990s, the Russian TV channeled were pushed out of Ukraine and by the end of 1990s-erly 20001s – the same happened to the Russian press. The Ukrainian propaganda machine, not particularly effective and completely devoid of the intellectual component, worked out quite effectively under conditions of the informational monopoly. Naturally, everybody interested enough could easily obtained alternative information, but the majority of the population always receives political news from the most accessible sources.

As the social atmosphere changed, Ukrainian nationalism became more and more radical slowly turning into open Nazism. Institutionalized “civilized” nationalists from early 2000s (even before Yuchshenko) stopped demonstrating disdain for nationalistic militants. They quickly found justification for the radicalism of nationalists. It seems that militants are Nazi because they are offended by the preservation of the Soviet symbols, by that the majority of the population celebrates 9th of May, speaks Russian and is no hurry to proclaim as heroes murderous followers of Bandera that only survived to these days thanks to the Stalin’s humanism.

At some point in early 2000s, bureaucracy, anxious to destroy the social base of the left via privatization (similar processes took place in Russia as well), produced the oligarchy. Now it was not bureaucrats that appointed somebody to become a millionaire but billionaires bought whole parliament fractions, ministers, premiers, presidents. The bureaucratic-nationalistic consensus was substituted by the oligarchic-nationalistic. By that time, the situation in Ukraine appeared to the West (primarily to the US) ripe for active interference. Possibly, had the Ukrainian elites not chosen the anti-Russian course on their own, the West would not have dared to employ direct interference and coercion. However, Ukraine wanted to separate itself from Russia, exterminate in itself everything Russian for too long; it nurtured too carefully the most Russophobic, the darkest forces, for this to be ignored and not made use of.

Additionally, from the beginning of 2000s, with the new President, Russia concentrated more and more on its national interests and less on the “universal” values. That policy put Russia on the collision course with the US interests, and the anti-Russian Ukraine seemed to Washington an effective instrument for the containment of Russia. It is not at all surprising that the US bet on the forces representing the oligarchic-nationalistic consensus that were completely in control of the Ukrainian politics (regardless of the formal party competition or even animosity), particularly considering that these forces were Russophobic not only by ideology but also due to their practical interests.

Ukraine has become the key theater of action for the USA

We cannot say that the US has not followed the situation in Ukraine in 1990s and has not assembled a loyal group of politicians, bureaucrats, and public figures. It was a normal practice “just in case” (any intelligence always uses any opportunity to acquire valuable assets in countries with important strategic position, particularly if it does not cost too much). But in 1990s the US, dealing with the Yeltsin’s Russia ready on most issues to follow in the wake of the American politics, paid it back by recognizing some Moscow control over the post-Soviet space as the sphere of Russian vital interests and tried not to emphasize their interference into the internal affairs of the post-Soviet countries.

From the start of 2000s, the Russia’s foreign policy became more and more independent. Naturally, many politicians with the ties to Washington remained in power, but the influence of the pro-American lobby was no longer decisive, and the dynamics and vector of the change left little doubt: the new Russian political elites adopted a course on the restoration of independence in the foreign and internal policies. Putin was ready to remain a friend and ally of the US but on equal terms and not as a vassal.

That was an appropriate time to make use of the anti-Russian assets in post-Soviet countries. Importantly, almost all successful or failed “color revolutions” in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) occurred in 2003-2008 (from the “revolution of roses” in Georgia to the ”war of 08.08.08). The goal of these coups was not simply to cut Russia off from the post-Soviet region but to create a string of hostile states along its western and southern borders (up to the border with Mongolia and China). As a result, the opportunities for Russia to conduct independent foreign and economic policies would have been blocked, the resources tided up by the hostile surrounding consisting of the former Soviet republics. The reputation of the Russian government inside and abroad would have been constantly undermined by continuous provocations (like those that Saakashvili supplied in abundance). At the same time, Moscow would have been restricted in its ability to respond to such provocations, since any decisive move would have provoked an open war with a block of post-Soviet states (Yushchenko tried to embroil Ukraine in the Russian-Georgian conflict, but, according to the plan, there should have been 10-11 such Georgias and Ukraines). Thus, Russian would have been up against a block of countries from the Baltics to Baikal. The US could have interpreted that as a war of former colonies fighting against Russian neocolonialism applying to Russia the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples from 14th of December 1960 (by the way, adopted by the General Assembly on the USSR initiative) and all other resolutions of the UN General Assembly on the subject.

Russia missed the hit in 2003 in Georgia and in 2004 in Ukraine. Moscow managed to stop further spread of the “color infection” (the coups have not moved beyond Bishkek, but even in Kyrgyzstan the “revolution” was followed by the same “color” counter-revolution).

During the 5-day war in August of 2008, Russia launched the geopolitical offensive. From that moment on, all power of Washington was employed not to marginalize Moscow in order to to prevent it from becoming a geopolitical challenger of Washington, but to destroy the already established geopolitical rival. Russian efforts brought about peace (however fragile and unstable) in the Central Asia as well as blocked the American interests in the Caucasus. The latter was in the large degree due to two factors: that Kadyrov took it upon himself to stabilize the situation in the Northern Caucasus and that pro-American regime of Saakashvili thoroughly discredited itself by the defeat in the war (politicians that succeeded Saakashvili, although not friendly to Russia, are more reasonable, which provided an opportunity to stabilize the relationships). All these factors made Ukraine by the end of 2010 the key country for the US in the post-Soviet space.

A puppet bargaining with a puppet master

At that time, the oligarchic-nationalistic block believed that Russia should be treated as a source of all possible economic preferences, whereas the policy should be geared towards the West. By 2010, the “orange” Maidan team was completely discredited and lacked significant public support. Furthermore, the team had demonstrated total inability to create an acute conflict with Russia (like the one with Georgia) that would have tied up the Russian resources at the Ukrainian direction preventing Russian from interfering with the global affaires.

For that reason, the US did not object against the election of Yanukovich as President in 2010. Washington knew that Yanukovich would try to return to the Kuchma-style policy of multi-vector that presupposed the use of Russia’s resources to pay for the integration with the EU. At the beginning of 2000s, such policy no longer suited the US, and that was what prompted the coup of 2004. Then Washington no longer needed allies (no matter how loyal and dependent); it needed executors of already made decisions. But in 2010 the situation has changed: the US was pushed to support the Ukrainian multi-vector stance by the general weakening of its global geopolitical position as well as by the growing problems in the American economy. The US no longer had money to support its allies. Now the voiceless vassals were expected to pay for the American policy out of their own pocket.

In the situation of 2010, Yanukovych was the only Presidential candidate suitable for the US. The Yushchenko team (including the present day “heroes Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko) was completely discredited, and it would require time to restore its image. Timoshenko earned the reputation of been unpredictable and prone to constantly cheat her partners. The only dirt the US had on her (her cooperation with Lazarenko) has already been presented in the Ukrainian media and produced minimal effect. On the contrary, Yanukovych was not only under control of the American agents (the group of Levotchkin-Firtash) but sincerely wanted to “integrate into the EU” by signing the association agreement. Apparently Victor Feodorovitch decided to prove to all who deposed him in 2004 that he was the only one who could “unite Ukraine” reconciling the East and the West. In reality it meant the refusal to honor his election promises and the beginning of the pro-Western policies.

Yanukovych was expected to sign the association agreement that would destroy the Ukrainian industry, completely discredit himself, concentrate everything negative on his own persona and then lose the 2015 elections to the American protégée. To make sure this scenario is followed (in case Yuanukovych refuses to go peacefully), another Maidan was being prepared for 2015.

Yanukovych was naïve enough to believe that just because he is presenting the West with the whole of Ukraine, he would be allowed to get reelected in 2015. To that end, he and his surrounding actively financed and supported Nazi organizations (not only “Freedom” but also “Ukraine Patriot”, UIA-OUN and others). “Dander of fascism” was supposed to unite around Yanukovych the anti-fascist voters from the South-East. For moderate nationalists and “eurointegrators”, the signed association with the EU was expected to serve as the incentive. Finally, to preserve the loyalty of the majority of the population, particularly those concerned exclusively with their economic wellbeing, it was planned under the pretext of the association to obtain a 15-20 billion credit from the EU, which would be enough, according to Azarov’s calculations, to keep up or even improve the living standards until the 2015 elections.

The plan of Yanukovych was logically perfect. The EU getting its hands on Ukraine – an assest worth trillions – was expected to open up its wallet for a mere twenty billions. Yanukovych and Azarov thought that if Greece received 200 billions, then Brussels could find 20 billions for Ukraine.

The problem was that the US did not plan on keeping in power Yanukovych, who represented the interests of the national industry, and those interests would sooner or later collide with the abstract but unprofitable “European values”. He was supposed to be replaced by completely tame comprador, and the national Ukrainian business was supposed to die out replaced by the European companies.

Maidan instead of the golden key

As result of that 5-year operation, the US would have established in Ukraine by early 2015 perfectly tame and legitimate Russophobic regime. The EU would have the free trade zone with Ukraine, which, first, after the demise of the Ukrainian industry, provided Europe with the 45 million-strong Ukrainian market (albeit with the decreasing buying power but still able to last a while longer), but, most importantly, via the free trade zone within the CIS the EU should obtain the access to the marked of all CIS countries, particularly that of Russia. That would have minimized the European losses from the planned free trade agreement between the EU and US that was disadvantageous for the EU. Europe hoped to cover the losses form the free trade zone with the US at the expense of Russia and CIS.

Obviously, the US cared not about the compensation of the European financial and economic losses but about its own geopolitical interests. Most importantly, that free trade agreement acting as the “wormhole” from the US directly into the CIS made the Custom Union worthless and negated all integration plans of Russia in Eurasia. In one hit, the US would restore its political and economic dominance in the world, and the most dangerous American rival – Russia – was expected to pay for it.

That was a very elegant plan, and I can imagine how mad the Washington politicians were when that lummox Yanukovych finally realized that he would never see the European billions to support the social stability and suddenly only three months before the signing of the association agreement postponed the event. Yanulovych thought that he would bargain, get the money, and then sign. To make the EU more amenable, he went to Moscow, in accordance with the old Ukrainian tradition, where the coveted billions were promised to him on much easier terms. Putin tried at the last moment to play the Ukrainian cards he was dealt, that was why the decisions were made quickly and big money was given freely.

In contrast to Yanukovych, people in Washington know full well what the window of opportunities is. All interconnected elements – from the signing of the association Ukraine-EU agreement to Maidan-2015, including the free trade agreement the US-EU – were built into a rigid scheme and coordinated in time. Taking out one block made the whole building come down. As a result, Yanukovych got himself Maidan as early as the end of 2013.

Who unleashed the civil war

However, we need to thank for that not so much the US as Levochkin. He and Firtash providently protected their business in the association agreement, which was prepared under the watchful eye of the Chief of Staff of the president of Ukraine – that is, the very same Levochkin.

Therefore, after the signing the country economy was supposed to go downhill, most oligarchs to become poorer whereas the group of Levochkin-Firtash – to get richer. The refusal to sign the association agreement put an end to the financial and political wellbeing of the group. Levochkin, who was coordinating his activity with the US embassy from way back and was involved in the Maidan preparations, decided to use that mechanism to put pressure on Yanukovych and coerce him into signing the association agreement. He initiated the students’ Maidan, and then it did not make the proper impression on Yanukovych, provided the provocation with beating up the students, after which Maidan stopped being peaceful.

After that, Yuanukovych had only two-three weeks left to disperse Maidan, before his power began to crumble from the inside, before his nominally loyal ministers and generals started negotiations with the opposition about switching to their side, before the West actively intervenes. Yanukovych, too sure of the strength of his position and insignificance of Maidan, started long negotiations with the opposition trying to make Maidan go away by temporary concessions. As soon as his weakness became evident, the West entered the game. The regime was doomed.

Having learned form the previous Maidan, Yanukovych was prepared to defend himself. He intended to simply wait out Maidan behind the police cordons. The idea was: if they do not go away in half a year, then they will after a year; sooner or later they will give up. And then it was revealed that, in contrast with the army, the Ukrainian police are professional and well trained, and peaceful Maidan has no chance to overthrow the government. Only a military coup has that chance.

At the moment when the Ukrainian opposition and the US chose the path of a military coup, and the EU agreed to that decision, the fate of Ukraine was sealed. If until then, despite decades of the cold civil war between the Russian and Galician Ukraine, there still existed options for peaceful compromise-based resolution of the internal conflict, now, with the hot civil war going on, the break down of the country became inevitable. The problem was that the neo-Nazi militants were expected to play the role of the key force of the coup, since the opposition lacked any other organized force. However, if the militants are given weapons (so that they could accomplish the coup), and the adequate response of the law enforcing agencies is blocked, then the militants become effectively the masters of the country.

Law enforcement structures, having been betrayed by the politicians, rapidly degraded; true professionals left, neo-Nazis joined in, opportunists ready to serve any power remained. Nazis found themselves in favorable position allowing them to not only rapidly increase their numbers and supply of arms, but also institute effective control over the law enforcement structures.

All this was clear and present threat for the Russian population of Ukraine. It was much less organized, lacked military units, was almost without weapons, but in conditions of the imminent Nazi terror the problems were being rapidly solved. 25 millions of anti-fascists could not flee Ukraine. Nor could they accept the victory of the second Maidan, as they had accepted that of the first. The first Maidan stepped on their choice, the Constitution, and the law. The second threatened their lives.

A military confrontation of the two almost equal parts of Ukraine supported, respectively, by the US and Russia made a victory of one side problematic and the war potentially endless. It could have likely turned out that way, and Moscow would have found itself mired in the Ukrainian conflict for many years, but at the time of the coup the internal economic resource that supported the functioning of the Ukrainian state was practically exhausted. To pull the Ukrainian economy out of the crisis, many billions in credits were required as well as long-term investment projects and capacious markets for Ukrainian goods. Russia was prepared to offer all of this to Yanukovych but had no intention (and could not even if it wanted to) to offer anything to the Nazis.

It immediately became apparent that the EU and US likewise have no intentions to finance Ukraine. The outbreak of a civil was suited Washington just fine: there was no need to spend any money, but both Moscow and Brussels were sure to have problems, and the possibility of a dangerous for the US alliance between the EU and EAEU was blocked. The EU itself did not manage during the entire crisis to emerge from under the US shadow and start to defend its own and not American interests.

Internecine quarrel

The lack of resources not only for a prolonged war but even for the routine functions of the state should have made the Ukrainian civil was short but extremely intense and bloody. Initially, the conflict was indeed developing that way until Moscow succeeded in temporarily reducing the intensity of the fighting forcing Kiev into the Minsk agreement.

Nevertheless, the Minsk agreement did not and could not solve the key Ukrainian problems. Thus, it was from the start considered by both side of the Ukrainian conflict as a pause, which should be used to strengthen their positions and increase their military potential. Kiev found itself in a worse situation than DPR and LPR. The republics had Russia as their rear, and a part of their relatively small population fled to Russia, while those that remained were able to subsist on the Russian humanitarian aid. Ukraine, on the other hand, suffered economic catastrophe rapidly growing into the political crisis. Accelerating decline in living standards of the majority of the population, increasing unemployment that is now at about one third of workforce, lack of prospects, all this undermined the trust in Maidan politicians, created resentment and radicalization in the society that threatened another Maidan.

The economic catastrophe split the Maidan elite, which was not united to begin with. The political groups will have to fight for the remaining economic resources as well as find and present to people those responsible for the failures in the war and destruction of the economy, which makes any agreement among them virtually impossible. Considering that every political group in Ukraine already has its own military units (mostly volunteer battalions), the only political experience of whose consists of taking part in the military coup against Yanukovych and in the civil war, it is certain that they will be solving this internecine Maidan dispute by the force of arms.

Fatal inevitability of self-liquidation

The civil war in Ukraine is taking on several forms, and it is only a matter of time before it intensifies. Ukraine is not able to escape this fatal funnel by itself. The Nazis will not let the government reach a compromise with Novorossia. Novorossia will not live quietly with the Nazi government. There are no resources to alleviate the social problems. The Ukrainian leadership is inadequate and poorly understands what in reality is happening in the leftovers of the Ukrainian economy or who and how determines the country’s politics. An attempt to resolve the conflict internally would, because of a relative balance between the opposing sides, lead to so many casualties that the neighbors would not be able to remain uninvolved, not least because millions of refugees would be pouring over the borders.

In order to avoid the development of the conflict according to the worst scenario, an external power willing to take on the responsibility for disarming the sides of the conflict and for the financial and economical support of Ukraine to restore its economy is required. Presently, there are no volunteers to perform such charity. Taking into account the political situation in Ukraine (split, full of hatred, armed to the teeth society) as well as its economic conditions, the benefactor would run a risk of overstraining himself by carrying the Ukrainian load.

Inadequacy of the Ukrainian elite, its irrational belief in the willingness of the West to solve the Ukrainian problems at the expense of the West put the state in the position when it speedy self-liquidation is the only logical way of development of the the current situation. Conversely, preservation and restoration of the Ukrainian statehood, even within diminished territory, appears less probable or even improbable. To come to pass, this option would require a miracle that would change all the factors now at play. Based on the religious faith in miracles, this may appear possible, but from the position of the political analysis, the probability of it is so low that it should not even be considered.

Impossible to cancel the war

And the last argument, possibly, the most unpleasant for citizens of Ukraine still believing in the possibility of the revival of their country. The country could be saved if at least one of the global players were interested in prolonging its existence. Of course, listening to the diplomats and state leaders, one could easily believe that the whole world dreams of nothing else but of the revival of Ukraine and restoration of its territorial integrity. But as we know, diplomats use the language to hide their thoughts, and the true position of a state is never spoken of openly (otherwise, there would not be any need to maintain the intelligence and counterintelligence agencies). We can only judge the true goals and intentions of a state by its actions.

First, between August and December of 2014 in Donbass an army had been formed to replace the disparate groups of militia. The army well trained and equipped was clearly excessive for the defense of those stubs of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions now controlled by the armed forces of Novorossia. We could, of course, believe that the militiamen found tanks, guns, self-propelled heavy artillery units, multiple rocket launchers, and other nice things in the Donetsk steppe. They had not noticed these things there from April to August and then all of a sudden – rich harvest: everyone who ever gathered mushrooms knows that such a thing can happen. One could also believe that thousands of instructors (from sergeants to complete regiment headquarters) necessary to create an effective military structure just simply came from different countries following their hearts (which does not happen in this world). It is even possible to believe the weapons were found and that the instructors came not only in the required numbers but also with required specializations. However, spare parts, ammunition and GSM in quantities sufficient for the intense fighting still had to be supplied by someone.

The minimal approximate size of the armed forces of Novorossia is 35 thousands (about three divisions at the time of the Great Patriotic war). To conduct regular military operations (and to support the civil population, at least, at the level of subsistence) the supplies should reach hundreds of tons a day. For comparison: 6th Army of Paulus at Stalingrad at the beginning of the encirclement, according to the calculation of the German command, required 600 tons a day of supplies only to maintain it battle ready. Paulus thought that the minimal requirement was 800 tons. At the moment of encirclement, Paulus commanded up to 240 thousands soldiers (possibly, 30 thousands of Romanians were not counted by the German command).

That is, whatever the patriots-alarmists say, in Novorossia an army has been created in a shortest time clearly excessive for the defense of the controlled territories. Such army could not have been organized without Russia’s help. Russia is obviously not inclined to spend money and resource (that are not unlimited) without good and sufficient reason. If an army capable of attacking is being formed, it means it will attack.

Second, if Russia and Russia-friendly media at every corner repeat how trustworthy Poroshenko is and how he would establish the federalized Nazi-free Ukraine at any moment, then, considering the actual situation in Ukraine, where neo-Nazi and his colleague in power regularly accuse Poroshenko of betrayal, it appears that Petr Alekseevich is been led to the slaughter, while Russia is readily furnishing his opponents with the arguments for the coup.

Third, if OSCE, EU, and American satellites all fail to see the Russian soldiers in Ukraine or to observe anything but humanitarian convoys crossing the border (what caused multiple hysterics in Kiev), then this is because they do not want to see. After all, when the Americans or Europeans want to notice something, then they see even thing that are not there, like weapons of mass distraction in Iraq, referendum in Kosovo, or Russian fault in the catastrophe of the Malaysian airplane near Donetsk. In other words, knowing that the army has been organized in Novorossia much stronger than the one that defeated the Ukrainian army in August, and that this army sooner or later would start an offensive, the EU and US absolutely ignore the opportunity to accuse Russia of arming one side of the conflict. Furthermore, our Western “partners”, by deciding to provide Ukraine with military aid (including weapons), offer Moscow an opportune to legalize its own participation in arming Novorossia.

Fourth, the US is pushing Kiev to the escalation of the armed conflict knowing full well that any more or less serious Kiev offensive would be used by Novorossia to inflict yet another catastrophic defeat on the Ukrainian army. Washington also understands that the next catastrophe would be the last – even if the militia lacked the numbers to occupy the whole territory of Ukraine at once, a coup in Kiev and subsequent free for all anarchy on the territories not controlled by the Novorossian militia would become inevitable. In any case, there would not be any Ukraine (united or split).

In other words, everybody is preparing for the war with the full understanding of the outcome of that war. The maneuvers of the actual players in the conflict hiding behind the leaders in Kiev, Donetsk, and Lugansk are aimed at being able to convincingly blame the opponent for the renewal of the fighting, its inevitable escalation and increased gore. Yes, Moscow and Brussels do not need the war in Ukraine. Yes, it would be desirable to find a peaceful solution. But because Washington is intent on fighting, and Kiev has no choice but to fight, the start of the second phase of the civil war in Ukraine could be postponed, the army of Novorossia could be prepared so that to avoid officially deployment of the Russian army, but the war cannot be canceled.

London and Paris wanted the USSR to battle with Germany in 1939. Stalin wanted to delay the start of the war until at least May of 1942 (by that time the Soviet army was expected to complete the rearmament). The war started in 1941. Obviously, Putin would be happy to postpone the conflict until 2017. By that time there would be a good chance to gain control over Ukraine without the escalation and without more losses. It is equally obvious that the US would have preferred Russia to start fighting in April-May of 2014. It seems that Russia managed to avoid getting directly involved in the conflict but this will have to be paid for by a full-scale (from Lvov to Kharkov and from Kiev to Odessa) civil war in Ukraine in 2015.

The return of the Empire

The last question of possible interest to us: what will happen to Ukraine as a result of the war? Nothing. There will not be any Ukraine. The very fact that with Moscow’s help adequate governments structures in DPR and LPR still have not been created indicates that these republics are not needed. Novorossia remains a geographic and historic term but is not becoming a political reality. The army was needed – it had been organized, whereas the government structures are not needed – and they have not emerged. This means that Novorossia is not planned. The patriots-alarmists then draw the conclusion that Novorossia is being betrayed to Kiev. But if, as we have shown above, Kiev itself is betrayed, and self-liquidation of the regime is simply a question of time and not of principle, and we are talking about a short period of time here, then who would Novorossia be betrayed to?

It will be betrayed to nobody, and nobody will be creating it. What does Russian need a new Ukraine in the guise of Novorossia for? Russia also does not need any “buffer state” between the EAEU and EU. It would only get in a way. Anyway, Russia has a border with NATO countries (Norway, Estonia, Latvia). Russia needs the entire Ukraine or almost entire Ukraine. It is now obvious not only to Moscow but also to Brussels that this territory is incapable of independent development and is only a source of problems. That is why Novorossia as a federal region (as well as Malorossia) is possible whereas as an independent state (independent states) it is not. The world does not have any more money for independence, be it Ukrainian, be it Novorossian – it is as simple as that.

It is time for the Empire to return to its natural borders (at the very least, in the south-west).

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

There are the little matters of the Mongols and the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. Not to mention Novogorod was founded 20 years before Kiev. Genetically and linguistically, Poland, Belarussia and Little Russia (Ukraine +) are closer to each other than they are to Great Russia. England and the other Protestants) resurrected Russia in 1612. to stop Poland becoming a giant Catholic Empire like Spain.

There are no Russian traitors as you so aptly claim. President Putin has always encouraged Kiev to have Donetsk and Luhansk become part of a Federation giving them independence.

1. Citizens in those areas never voted to become part of Russia so no issue there.

2. President Putin realizes money is going to have to come from somewhere to rebuild everthing from housing, businesses, and industry that has been destroyed. This money needs to come from U.S. and EU since they are the coup masters. I don’t think Russia wants that responsibility since they have their own issues to overcome strenghthening their own country.

Problem is whether Donetsk and Luhansk would ever agree to be even part of Ukraine as a Federation.

Because Russia has capitalist economy [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_mode_of_production_(Marxist_theory) … whichever suits you]. Hence the wealth of the nation is – naturally – in the hands of the few and not in the hands of the people ‘n sheeple. These “few” have their well-established means of protecting their wealth (from those “few” owning other capitalist countries, from their own people, from others’ people, etc.). Which means include their politicians, their laws which their politicians write to order and execute, their clergy (unified – as in Russia, or diversified – as in America) – to keep the sheeple brain-anesthetized, abiding & fearing, their security apparatus, their police, their military, etc. In Russia and Malorussia they are called Oligarchs, in America they are called Big Business……….

I think that Ishchenko is very insightful in his analysis, if perhaps a little too flippant about the sudden appearance, like mushrooms, of the thousands of officers and NCOs necessary to command a large army. As ishchenko noted earlier, the Berkut at the time of the Maidan turned out to be very professional. Afterwards, its members were mostly “lustrated.” Likewise, much of the officer corps of the pre-Maidan army was also lustrated. Where did they all go? Many into the resistance, I believe. Also, there were probably about 5000 military officers in the Crimea who chose Russian citizenship.

The Victory Day parades, in the various cities and communities of the Donbass, certainly speak to the army size approximated by Ishchenko as being indeed a minimal estimate. It is probably very much greater, and it is likely far from being all Donbass men and women. That is the face that we are presented with, but it doesn’t mean that the hidden part, like the submerged portion of an iceberg, is Russian Federation forces. I think it is resistance fighters from all over the Ukraine, many of whom went to join the resistance forces training in Russia, under the guise of being refugees, foreign temporary workers, or even Ukrainian draft dodgers. Russia admits to only about 2.5 million Ukrainian citizens being in the country, of which over one half million are men of military age. That said, Ishchenko is right about the huge investment and quantity of material being supplied by Russia, which has been carefully covered by periodic outbreaks of hysterics from Igor Girkin/Strelkov. NATO has been deceived again.

“Third, if OSCE, EU, and American satellites all fail to see the Russian soldiers in Ukraine or to observe anything but humanitarian convoys crossing the border (what caused multiple hysterics in Kiev), then this is because they do not want to see. After all, when the Americans or Europeans want to notice something, then they see even thing that are not there, like weapons of mass distraction in Iraq, referendum in Kosovo, or Russian fault in the catastrophe of the Malaysian airplane near Donetsk. In other words, knowing that the army has been organized in Novorossia much stronger than the one that defeated the Ukrainian army in August, and that this army sooner or later would start an offensive, the EU and US absolutely ignore the opportunity to accuse Russia of arming one side of the conflict. Furthermore, our Western “partners”, by deciding to provide Ukraine with military aid (including weapons), offer Moscow an opportune to legalize its own participation in arming Novorossia.”

First not a week goes by without the US regime, some Euro-stooge regime or NATO claiming there are Russian soldiers in the Donbas. The number claimed is usually 1000s. No evidence is ever provided to back these claims up, though. So the understanding is they are false claims, since given how the ZPC/NWO propaganda machine works, if they had any real evidence, they would flood every zio-media outlet on the planet with this news and be screaming hysterically in the UN. Look at the hysterics over the 2 Russians recently captured in the zio-media, you’d see 10 times that noise if they actually had evidence of a 1000 soldiers. This opinion by the author appears rather bizarre.

Also the claim the Novorussian military is for offensive use. Earlier the author claimed Novorussian forces numbered 35000, and that this was far more than needed to defend the Donbas from another ZPC/NWO ordered orc offensive. 35k troops is nothing, the orc forces attacking last summer-autumn numbered more than that. While the Novorussians held on, at points it looked rather grim. Any new orc offensive will probably be larger, if serious, and not simply a provocation, 35k troops covering the Donbas will be spread pretty thin just in defensive mode. So no, 35k is too small to be considered a force designed for a serious offense of the sort the orcs have tried. Not that they couldn’t do it, but it would require a complete and total rout of the orc attackers, and even then would only be large enough to recover territory lost in the Donbas. A march on Kiev or similar would be foolhardy, and probably pointless, anyway, given Ukrainian attitudes. The author provides no real evidence supporting his claim the Novorussian military is intended for offense.

He used the term minimal size. We know the troop size is well over 50,000 at the time of the last offensive (many are back of line support and security). Now they number upwards of 75,000. Zakharchenko indicated they wanted to grow to 100,000.

There has not been a word of complaint from the militia about the new Voentorg, and indications are there is so much supply that criminal black-market operations are a problem. (Batman and others were accused.)

The reality of the situation is the Army is big enough to crush the Ukie offensive one more time and with that devastation (probably worked into cauldron(s) by Russian staff officers and Intel), there will no longer exist an opposition Army. Thus, the Novorossiyan Army can take Mariupol and Odessa. The rest of the rollup will be worked with Ukie military plus Novorossiyan working in concert (arranged by Russian officers).

I believe plans exist for this development to play out. And the US and NATO know it and cannot do a thing to stop it without entering the war on the ground themselves. Then, they will be obliterated by Russia directly.

75-100k troops would be enough for some offensive capability. I think if the orcs were to try one more offensive, they would lose Mariupol for sure, along with the territory they took late last spring, such as Slavyiansk.

I’m doubtful there is an intention of going too much further. But maybe the Odessa and Kharkov areas, too. Strelkov was intent on bringing the war to Kiev and notice he’s not in Novorussia any more. My impression is the present Novorussian leadership is not interested in taking any territories outside the Donetsk and Lugansk original regions.

If US/NATO think the next offensive would see the orcs pushed back to Kiev and their quisling regime fall, logically, they would not allow it. Because that kills their Ukraine project of using the conflict to drain and isolate Russia. As they did with Afghanistan.

The ZPC/NWO is concentrating on training the orc nazis, not the regular troops – saw a story about this, either in a sitrep here, or while browsing Russian media. This mean the nazis are probably the most dominated by US/NATO, considered the most reliable, and these will be the backbone of the Ukraine military, not the regular army units. The ZPC/NWO probably owns the nazi leadership – they wouldn’t be training the militias if they didn’t. That also tells me the ZPC/NWO strategy will probably be concentrated on irregular, terrorism ops. As it is in the Mideast with their “al qaida” armies. So I think if there is another orc offensive and defeat, the resulting coup would probably be a nazi coup with the ZPC/NWO solidifying their position in western Ukraine and going the full hard core terrorism route, like in Syria, using the nazis like they use “al qaida”.

I expect that whether another offensive is attempted or not, the ZPC/NWO will be switching over to the terrorism route soon, hoping to coordinate ops against Russia from the Ukraine with “ISIL” type terror ops targeting the Central Asian republics and also western Chinese territories. Anyway, this is just idle speculation.

35,000 men is adequate for offensive military operations when your opponent is in disarray or is nonexistant or is governing unwilling people. See, for example, the ISIS offensive into Sunni regions of Iraq. This was done with an army of thousands, not hundreds of thousands. Zakharchenko announced a few months ago an intention of an army of 100,000. This would be more than adequate. Too large an army, and actual destruction becomes impossibly costly from the events of war.

The DNR has claimed the mantle of the Donetsk-Kirvoy Rog National Republic. This was not done accidentally. It places them in a political position to plausibly claim justification for offensive operations to Kharkov and beyond toward Poltava and well across the Dnipr and down to Crimea. The critical need would be to capture crossings of the Dnipr intact.

During Open Line with the President, President Putin took calls from Odessa as if it were part of the Russian Federation.

President Putin continues to insist that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, and that most of Ukraine is a gift of Russia with only a small part being properly part of Europe (Galicia, Transcarpathia, and Volhynia).

Terrorism ops with the likes of Aidar and Azov can only be conducted if the forces to carry out acts of terror are not first drawn out in the field and destroyed in battle.

The way I see it is, fascists (except maybe in Galicia,and maybe not even there) don’t have enough popular support to sustain a partisan campaign against Novorossian troops.They would be informed on constantly by decent citizens.And quickly eliminated by the NAF military.We would see a coalition government of Ukrainians take power (banning the fascist parties) and the Oblasts given more home-rule in a Federal system.That and economic, educational,and media reform would fairly quickly end any pro-fascist and EU support in those regions.

please provide LINKS for surveys, maps etc that you refer to. I assume you DID actually see these, to be able to judge their relevance. So just copy the URL land paste it here, please. That way people can see for themselves.

I’d also be interested in your definition of “Orthodox fascists”. Who or what are these groups?

BOT TAK, You say, “If US/NATO think the next offensive would see the orcs pushed back to Kiev and their quisling regime fall, logically, they would not allow it. Because that kills their Ukraine project of using the conflict to drain and isolate Russia. As they did with Afghanistan.”

I don’t think that’s the preferred scenario. I think blocking the continued econ integration of Eurasia has got to be their #1 priority cuz it rips EU away as a vassal or ally. Also wearing Russia down economically as you suggest wd take time, especially w China’s econ help. And US may be running short on time. No?

Not as much if the author means “then this is because they do not want to see.” or “they could come up with much better if they wanted” as in they actually may have the evidence but are not willing to present it anymore or are holding it back for effect, supposedly, so I interpret Ishchenko’s words, since US (and EU) have accomodated the original plans to the new reality on the ground (that of hopelessness for the coup faction). In the process letting their controled media run its regular course, with baseless/weak evidence as usual, in order to hide their partial defeat from general awareness.
In other words saying that conflict has gone from frontstage to backstage as far as US/EU is concerned. This should not imply that US/EU has given up, actually on the contrary, holding their cards closer precedes some sort of action.

I thought about that angle, along with it being a translation misunderstanding. The problem I see with the interpretation you describe is it means Ishchenko considers the claims by ZPC/NWO side about Russian troops being in the Ukraine to be true and that the Russian government was lying about this. It also means all the reporters and people in Novorussia who have claimed there is no Russian soldiers there were also lying. One can see where that is going to lead. ;D That is why I went with the interpretation I did and ended my rebuttal that I thought the paragraph was bizarre.

Quite possible about the Kerry-bot. If he’s being straight. But he, and the whole western ZPC/NWO establishment, have been such duplicitous scum with regard to the Ukraine (well, everything else, too) I wouldn’t bet on it. Remember when they backed off bombing Syria. They created ISIL instead. This is why I speculated they may do something similar in the Ukraine with the nazis (since convoying ISIL on new Toyota trucks through Eastern Europe would probably look kinda suspicious :D ).

There is a lot reasons to think the ZPC/NWO may changing tack in the Ukraine, but also a lot of reasons to expect them to keep the same strategy in place. The one thing I am certain about is that the ZPC/NWO are not throwing in the towel.

Nobody serious makes these claims. That includes NATO generals who have no intelligence service of their own. They are political coordinators. NATO is a political organization not a military one. The US Marines know where every Russian tank repairman (they need a lot) is eating his lunch.

Wow. That takes my breath away, so to speak. Thanks for translation and publishing, Eugenia and Saker! What an amazing analysis. Had it not come from Ishchenko, I might not have devoured every word. Since it does come from Ishchenko – a bold analyst, as we’ve seen – now I have to step back and review the series of bold pronouncements he makes.

I like his retrospective of the last few decades, and his portrait of the greed and corruption that swallowed a country and kept it from finding the way to its spiritual heart, with which to fuel a sense of sovereignty.

Moving to the present, and the future, his statements are chilling, but I have no way to refute them. They go against some of the common themes and premises we’ve tended to accept and agree in discussions here. But if, as Shoigu says, “nothing just happens,” then the concepts that Ishchenko presents are compelling, or at least provocative – that NAF has been created big enough to pacify the entire country, but Novorossia has been left without the foundations of a separate breakaway nation, because these will not be needed. This last part was the breathtaking part for me.

I could learn to like these concepts. I already find them admirable. I don’t have the collateral knowledge to call them true yet. So I have no opinions, and I’m no kind of military person. But I shall watch events with interest and with Ishchenko’s forecasts ringing in my head.

Novorosia as a state has never been on the cards. Perhaps in the first few months. From Russia the constant theme for some tome has been federation or autonomous region.
Having a section of the future Ukraine that is friendly to Russia is a huge advantage down the track. If Novorossia was to separate or join the RF, they would have no say in future Ukraine policies.
As part of a future Ukraine they will have a say in policy.
I would guess that Putin as always is looking 9-10 moves ahead here. (5-10-20 years)

Putin hasn’t shown signs of thinking one move ahead. He has overplayed short term advantages all the way along like most East and South Slavs in negotiation. He has lost almost every step of the way. Even Crimea was a massive mistake. US sanctions are hard to lift once in place due to the way the government works. He has massive losses. He’s even weakened his position in Belarus.

Moscow has been affirming “territorial integrity of Ukraine” all along. Because Putin does not want to enter Russian History as the man who lost Kiev, holy site of the first Rus. Which is why the idea of Novorossija was not played out in propaganda as it could have been. Novorossija would have implied a division of the country, with Kiev going West. DNR/LNR were always clearly makeshift in character. Heck, they haven’t even united into something like “Donbass People’s Republic”.

I’ve always thought about it as Russia considering Ukraine affected by a disease, that must be allowed to realize its full potential so that the people become sufficiently sick of it in order to then say “Thank God, it’s over!” And over it will be soon, I think – because around Victory Day Russian propaganda unambiguously started framing the situation in Ukraine in terms of the Great Patriotic War. Which is to say that Moscow means business. And has shown the world it has the means to jolly well go after her business.

The West is getting tired of its own pro-Ukro propaganda. There are enough other problems. The Ukraine is an annoyance. The EU has failed with its attempt to conquer Ukraine, and so has Uncle Sam.

What about all the nasty people that are referred to as “Nazis” on this blog? Well, first, that’s not a proper usage of the term. These nasty Ukrainians don’t have a political program of their own, like NS did in Germany. They are little more than useful idiots. That is, the die-hard nationalists, which are not too many. Most of the volunteers are just in it for the money. Because for the moment, war is business.

Venal people will adapt to a new system. They always do. Die-hard nationalists, if they choose to fight, will cease to be. There won’t be any rescue line to the West for them. After all, what should Canada or the US do with idiots that at one moment were useful but are not any more?

The essence of their nationalism was negative. “We are not Russia!” That’s all they’ve been able to say. Doesn’t convince anybody. Nobody in Germany would be able to tell a Russian from a Ukrainina anyway, and for a reason.

One thing that might become dangerous is any Polish attempts at controlling Galicia. They must be thoroughly dissuaded from attempting any “funny stuff”.

Some people on these Saker blogs are nostalgic about communism. It won’t happen again – not in Russia, not in Germany, nor anywhere else. But I think (and hope!) that the success of Russia will restaure the meaning of the State across Europe and stop the crazy Americanization / privatization / sell-out of countries like Germany and Italy. And bring about the defeat of globalism. And many other good things.

Lumi, If it glorifies Nazis from the past, runs aroound w swastika flags, kills others based on their ethnicity, and makes it illegal to celebrate victory over Nazism– that sounds like a Nazi to me. Only 3 countries voted against Russia’s UN resolution condemning Nazism: Ukraine, US & Canada.

I read this twice. It is a marvelous history in digest form of Ukraine. It lays out the development of the crisis created to destroy Russia.

It also sets up the present as prologue to Ukraine disintegrating.

Finally, the author sees the Russian Empire reformat in the “south-west”. In other words, Ukraine will for all intents and purposes be part of Russia, leaving a small part to whoever wants it.

No independence for Novorossiya. No independence for Ukraine. It is all lost.

He points mostly to the size and arming and leadership (supplied by Russia) for an Army large enough to destroy the Ukies (even re-armed by NATO and trained by US).

It is very hard to argue with the points he makes. It seems like he has laid out the path that will be followed by the logic of the facts, and especially, he emphasizes, by the actions of Russia.

They decided to win back the whole, not cut it up, and they will win it with the Army of Novorossiya. There will be war. And then Ukraine will be no more.

Take Kerry’s trip to Putin and you can see what the four hours included. Ukraine is gone from the West. They have enough satellite and drone imagery to know that. Kerry must have hoped for a swap (Assad out). But Putin is not a horse trader. He wins. Kerry went away with nothing, except Lavrov’s personal phone number, maybe. The US gets nothing but conversation, and the potato,tomato and T-shirt in a swag bag.

I am very thankful for this article. It has a mastery of thought.

The translation is very good. Thank you, Eugenia!

The piece is very important to absorb.

It makes terrific common sense conclusion. Judge by actions. Judge by facts on the ground. Look at the very big picture.

Seconded. The elegant simplicity and logic of Ischenko’s thoughts are compelling. One can almost hear the sound of pieces clicking into place as the puzzle’s picture becomes apparent, and then suddenly obvious.

I hope his analysis of the end game is correct.I have know from the start about the pre-2014 events.But only dreamed that it could end as he says it will.I thought there would have to be a way-station of a Independent Ukraine and/or a Ukraine and Novorossia before someday unity was restored to the Rus lands.Hopefully he is fully correct.

Ukraine disintegrating, or the current political climate and “nazi” backed militias ect disintegrating?
Every thing from Lavrov and Putin in the last six months indicate they think Ukraine should remain as a whole with its current borders.
Donetsk and Luhansk to have a large degree of autonomy that will influence future Ukraine policies?

I would prefer that Kharkiv finally could make up its mind, and lead a revival of eastern Ukraine as a replacement capitol, assuming Kiev falls and Ukraine goes bust(pretty soon)….then it could act as a temporary holder of some kind of administrative sanity, so regions conduct polls for people to decide what they wish to do, stay together, federalise, or become a protectorate with Rus support(if invited) especially if Rus could see that as a way of helping to stop placement of NATO missiles in eastern Ukraine…..maybe Rus plan has a back up surely if Ukraine does finally completely fall apart, its just they couldn’t possibly mention it at the time……..

Well, he got to assign that US neocon foreign policy slut, Nuland of Cookieland, to go visit Moscow and work with the Russians on how to shut down the mad hatter’s tea party she started in Kiev and formally dial-in the US/NATO to the Putin-Merkel Minsk deal.

I agree with much of this analysis (certainly from the historical parts from before 2014,he is correct).I very much hope he is also correct on his thinking of the strength of the Novorossian forces ,and the end game of the crisis.I saw a part of an article from Ft Russ that was interesting:

“Maksim Sokolov argues that Russia and Ukraine will never be brothers because, unlike brothers, they are really one and the same creature, just as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are one and the same individual. Which means this is not a conflict between two sovereign states but rather conflict over national identity of the Russian people, with Ukraine laying a claim to Russia’s heritage and accomplishments rather than trying to stake out its own independent identity. Sokolov also notes that Galicia (“Ukraine’s Piedmont”) is nowhere to be seen on the political scene anymore and that even in Russia itself the so-called “liberal opposition” was busy promoting the idea of Ukraine as Russia 2.0, a “new and improved”, “Europeanized” and “de-imperialized” version of Russia that would meet with the approval of the West and which would present the Russia 1.0 with a choice of either joining Ukraine or perishing. What Sokolov doesn’t mention that, at the time, much of the US reporting on the Maidan Revolution were positively salivating at the prospect of Ukraine’s unrest spreading to Russia. Of course, that was about a year ago…The fact that even outlets like Novaya Gazeta are looking on the Ukrainian project with skepticism, even criticism, suggests the outcome of that particular round of struggle is already in sight.”

“Dnepropetrovsk could be renamed – Jerusalem-on-the-Dnieper , May 20, 2015”

‘German journalists from Deutschlandradio published an article titled “Dnepropetrovsk will become Jerusalem”. Oleg Rostovtsev, a spokesman for the Jewish community, which has 50 000 parishioners, supports the renaming of Dnepropetrovsk to Jerusalem-on-the-Dnieper:
“Jerusalem for residents of Dnepropetrovsk is a city of peace, not conflict. Many of us have already visited Jerusalem, worshiped the holy places, came back and said: here it’s almost the same – next to the synagogue stands a mosque, and nearby there are churches and monasteries. We also respect our different traditions”.
The price tag to rename 25 Ukrainian cities and 1,500 streets – from 5 to 17 billion UAH.’

The Guardian has finally turned off comments on all ‘bad news’ Ukraine stories. Can’t take the heat. Over the last several months, the fascist trolls had been losing badly. Hope someone is archiving their ‘coverage’ as a case study for future generations.

What incentive would Donbass/ Novorossiya have for any kind of reunification with Kiev? Sharing the IMF burden? Dismantling of what remains of the industry? sell-out of their lands to Cargyll in order to grow GMO crops nobody wants in Europe? Lucrative contracts for Burisma and petro multinationals? Setting up sweatshops? Being disarmed by a hostile and unreliable Kiev? Allowing nazi bands robbing and raping in the liberated areas??

When Kiev initiates another offensive, I cannot even see a sure conquest of the total Novorossiya area by the NAFin the subsequent counter offensive. Can the NAF hold on to this area already? If yes, this would mean step 1 and I think perhaps step 2.

After defeating the junta armies I could see step 3: civil war/ coups in the west, and some areas secceding or joining Poland, Hungary etc.. A strong centrifugal incentive would be to get away from the IMF burden + its strings attached.

Practically that is the entity which has to be defeated: step 4. This is hardcore AZ. Personally I cannot even envision this battle, since this corrupted and anti moral/ anti human entity has already instigated 2 world wars. The IMF and the other entities/ incarnations involved would have to swallow the debt, annull the austerity and privatization plans, and say goodbye to neolibcon, chessboard and wolfowitz plans.

step 5: this would leave a reasonably organized Novorossiya and a somalized rest of Ukraine and a wounded, but not yet killed hardcore AZ entity. Will the EU still be around then? What would be the position of NATO and TTIP ?

Well,maybe not “humanism” exactly.Maybe he considered it smarter at the time (not sure I’d agree).But instead of executing most of the pro-nazi supporters. He imprisoned (later released),or exiled some, and amnestied the rest.Which is why we saw a video of now, good Russians, saying their grandparents were exiled to Siberia and they grew-up there (now returned to fight for Donbass).And hear about the sons and grandsons of ex-UPA members now helping lead the current nazis in Ukraine.As well as videos of some of the actual,by now old men,that served in the UPA at the time. Had Stalin finished them off that wouldn’t be so. Unlike Hitler’s death camps,the Gulag’s weren’t meant to be “death camps” as such.Certainly, many died there,and treatment was horrible.But the state purpose wasn’t as death camps.Most inmates survived and were released.There are many Russian movies showing returnee’s from those camps.So,maybe humanism isn’t the best term.But the results were, that too many of the bad guys among the nazis escaped the fate they certainly so richly deserved.

Humaneness, humanity Difficult translation nuance. Somewhere earlier today I saw “weapons of mass distraction.” I know you agree the translators do a darn fine job. I imagine it wd take twice as long to wipe out every single error.

As an Indian, I have no difficulty in conceding a limited “humanism” to Stalin, if only in comparison to Hitler. This blog has seen comments comparing the present set-up job of a Ukraine as a counter to Russia , to the similar artificial creation of Pakistan by the Brits by dividing India. We are still living with the consequences. It was only the Brits who did it. Roosevelt and Stalin both favoured a United India.Churchill is guilty of genocide by blocking all relief for Bengal in Famine in 1943, leading to 6 million deaths. And that led to internecine killing among the famine victims, which was among the factors used by the Brits to divide India.

After division of India and independence(1947), in the year1951, C Rajeshwar Rao, general Secretary of CP of India, called on Stalin in Moscow. Stalin said “Pakistan is an underhand trick played on you people by the British. You must all reunite, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma…”

Based on Putin’s decision to embrace the EU-Ukraine free trade agreement, abandon Donetsk and Lugansk, grant Victoria Nuland’s request that he reinstate anti-Russian ideologue Lyudmila Alexeyeva to her former post, and to stop inflation-adjusting pensions (as demanded by economic liberals), it is clear that Russia has already surrendered. Add to that the fact that Russian soldiers — even before the overthrow of Yanukovich — constantly whine to NGOs and the media that they are unwilling to fight anyone and one wonders why Russia even bothers pretending to oppose the West. Putin should stop wasting money on the military and useless diplomats such as Lavrov, transfer the money to pensions for the babuskas, speed up the already planned return of the Crimea (to Ukraine), and resign.

– “Putin should stop wasting money on the military and useless diplomats such as Lavrov, transfer the money to pensions for the babuskas, speed up the already planned return of the Crimea (to Ukraine), and resign.”

“Putin agrees to admit head of Moscow Helsinki Group to presidential human rights council
Russia: Russian human rights activist and head of the Moscow Helsinki Group Lyudmila Alexeyeva will use the position offers a communications channel with the authorities”http://tass.ru/en/russia/795397

It was second part to the first one being my answer to Sharon platitudes where I mentioned RF Pontoon Navy in place of Mistrals and Moskva class cruisers but moderator deleted the introduction part. Now this comment is out of context and … silly!

re: “Fourth, the US is pushing Kiev to the escalation of the armed conflict knowing full well that any more or less serious Kiev offensive would be used by Novorossia to inflict yet another catastrophic defeat on the Ukrainian army. Washington also understands that the next catastrophe would be the last – even if the militia lacked the numbers to occupy the whole territory of Ukraine at once, a coup in Kiev and subsequent free for all anarchy on the territories not controlled by the Novorossian militia would become inevitable. In any case, there would not be any Ukraine (united or split).”

Seems rather unlikely, that the U.S. is pushing the Ukraine to attack in order to throw it under the bus. Not impossible, I suppose. As in Faust: no matter what evil does is ultimately self defeating. It will be a test of Mr. Ishenko’s predictive abilities to see if anything like that happens.

Seward, Some months back Joaquin Flores was also talking about how the US wanted the chaos of absolute anarchy & would destroy as much infrastructure as possible under cover of it. How Russia was trying to avoid this happening. Even more expense for Russia to rebuild if she takes Ukraine.

I can’t imagine any of the oligarchs or even Nazi militias sticking around to fight a serious military engagement. But it does seem likely that US might blow everything up, blaming Russia for the destruction.

The nuclear power plant and the pipelines of great concern, of course.

Ukrainian national suicide: Yes, the war can not be cancelled. The grim realities of a crumbling state run by death squads and oligarchs will be presented in all their horrors very soon. And there are potential hazards which may have to be seized for everyone’s safety including the peoples of the EU and so speed by means of a competent hand may be essential. Even the CIA asset, Merkel, has enough self preservation to understand that.

Yes, ‘window of opportunity ‘ is understood by Western Intelligence so is “getting your ducks in a row”. Also, in PR and timing they excel; however, there is the nagging suspicion that they really do not have the concept of “sleeper cell” down pat yet because that requires understanding of cultural nuance and historical perspective which are not strong cards in the Western play deck. We shall see as they try to reignite the Caucasus/South Russia in one way or another.

Hmm…. A fine tale ending in several contradictions and a falsehood: “The very fact that with Moscow’s help adequate governments structures in DPR and LPR still have not been created indicates that these republics are not needed. Novorossia remains a geographic and historic term but is not becoming a political reality.”

Yes, well, the war is inevitable but we are right in the best campaing weather of 2015 and nobody moves, except for nazi bandits wasting their ammo on civilians, as usual.
That, added to the fact that western special forces actually shot up a few of the more unruly nazi outposts would indicate that poroshenko is absolutely not ready/willing to move this year.
It may be that he deludes himself by thinking that his glorious army will be trained by US instructors and then sweep the evil moskals away the next year?
Who knows.
More probably he wants to keep his new satrapy largely intact, and that implies not moving his idiots east under any pretext, as the next Ilovaysk would probably mean his prompt ejection and/or execution.

One thing is certain: Events are occurring at a rapid pace making it difficult to keep abreast of them all, but they are all interconnected–Albania, Greece, South China Sea, Macedonia, Ukraine, Okinawa are the easiest to see.

The Novorossyan Militia, and the Russian State have hacked out a series of victories, since the fall of the Soviet Union (retrospectively: the biggest victory of all came with the imperialist pushed dismantling of the Stalinist State).

Yes, they lost some territory, both Russian, and non-Russian. They will recover the Russian parts – eventually.

Now, the Russian people, their opinions (80% favorable rating for Vladimir Putin), and their votes, (Putin has won 2 contested elections against real opponents), count for something. The Russian People count for something! The Russian people, energized once in 1905, and since, 2000ish, have emerged on the face of history.

Tolstoy, Solzhenytsin, and a thousand others of the Russian cultural heritage, mean everything to a Russian people who are well informed about the issues of the War in Europe. Their nation is experiencing a spiritual revival. Russia is healthier and stronger than it has ever been. And Vladimir Putin leads with the banner of Freedom, not Stalin’s banner of Tyranny, or Yeltsin’s banner of abject fawning betrayal, or Gorbachevs’s banner of plain old fashioned fawning.

Think! (Dictatorship of the Proletariat – what an unfortunate phrase; who wishes a dictatorship of anything? Of course the Proletariat did not dictate; they were dictated to). Among the Marxists, only Rosa Luxemburg (and a few of her comrades) understood the need for Democracy. But she did!!!

The revival of Russia may save Europe, even the world. Revival means; the people in motion, with leaders, but with those leaders under active instruction from the people. Totalitarian forms of government sign their own death warrants. Have you paid attention to the decline of the American Republic? Did you see the American Congress fawn to Master Netenyahoo? America is under the control of the English and Zionist Oligarchs. Its people are drugged, terrorized (afraid of their own shadows), and completely unconscious, oblivious, and ignorant of their Revolutionary heritage.

There will be no magic, easy, rapid, military victory for the Russian people in the Ukraine, but they will continue to resist the American/NATO/Nazi/ regime in Kiev, and victory will always be a possibility.

Peter, I share your hopes. I would like to see the beginnings of dismantling the IMF system, though. It’s not just destructive loan policies, you know. It’s the system whereby National central banks are made unresponsive to national interests & are instead controlled by the international banksters.

Thanks for your comments. Agree with your analysis of the IMF system. Exactly!
The People through their Republican form of governments must exercise control over their Banking system, and their own natural resources.

Would like to read a more substantive analysis of the kind of economy that a free people would prosper under. Freedom to enterprise, but limits on exploitation of humans (controls on capital manipulation, taxation levels/principles). Responsibilities to environment, population limits – democratically decided on (can the planet prosper with 7 Billion inhabitants)?

I don’t know why my post says it’s from Peter instead of from Penelope. Perhaps I wrote Peter in error.

You mention wanting a substantive analysis of the kind of economic system that’s needed. The best school of economics I’ve seen is Modern Monetary Theory and the biggest name is Michael Hudson. Here are a couple links

“(…) in July 2010 started the project, which aims to gauge public opinion on key issues of Russian life. “The incorporation of the Baltic States was an advantage or a disadvantage?”, “Does the introduction of troops in Afghanistan, was an affair of party or a geopolitical necessity?”, “The foreign policy of Alexander Nevski was fatal or It was salvation? “, etc. The project takes the form of a court, where there is a judge, lawyers and solicitors. The fact that the judge’s decisions are always preconceived (against dispassionate research line), but made the most exciting show. In addition, at the end of each segment viewers vote, and the results are always a slap in the face of the judge, project manager, one of the most hateful propagandist of our time, Nikolai Svanidze (pictured below, with his ideological brother in arms Leonid Mlechin).

-89% of viewers believe that the foreign policy of Alexander Nevsky for Russia was saving.

-80% of viewers believe that the reforms of Peter I were a breakthrough for the future.

-78% of viewers believe that Nikolai II was the leader who led the country to the brink.

-72% believe that the Bolsheviks saved the country.

-80% believe that Leon Trotsky would be the worst of all possible scenarios of development.

-78% are sure that collectivization was a terrible need.

-75% agree that Tukhachevsky was a failed Bonaparte.

-91% are confident that the Ribbentrop / Molotov pact was a break on the eve of the war and only 9% believe that the agreement opened the way to war.

-Reinstatement of the Baltic countries:
89% believe that this was an advantage, which helped stop the Nazis and only 11% think that was a disadvantage incorporation and annexation.

-Krushchev:
89% believe that their policy was a delayed-action mine. Khrushchev was a creature of certain groups of the nomenklatura, whose support Khrushchev had won at having given many privileges and money. In 30 years these corrupt elite groups will destroy the USSR.
11% believe that Khrushchev’s reforms were an attempt to save the situation, his ideas, or at least intentions, were good.

-Breznev period:
91% think that this time period was the time of missed options and only 9% said that this period (economically incomparable to what we live today) was the agony of the Soviet regime.

-Introduction of Soviet troops in Afghanistan:
87% think it was a geopolitical necessity, self-defense of the USSR against radical Islam trained by Western intelligence.
13% believe that the introduction of troops was an affair of party, which became a normal country in focus of terrorism.
(….)

-Yeltsin government reforms (under the direction of a certain Igor Gaidar):
86% consider these reforms as destructive, too radical, hasty, unclear for the people and because of this, criminals, while 14% have accepted as constructive.
(…)

“It notes that the project surveys are made not only by phones but also in the study program and also by internet. And it is very demonstrative that sometimes the results of certain surveys conducted in the study of Moscow, are different from those from mobile and internet. It is a very dangerous conflict that arises between Moscow and the rest of the country. Muscovites are more westernized than others and above all, people who generally gained much with the collapse of the USSR, while the rest of the country has sunk into bankruptcy both material and spiritual. Muscovites, gladly, agree with the black legend of the USSR, which serves to justify the murder of their country and to excuse their sudden wealth, whose base is the agony of their countrymen in the North, South and in Siberia.”

Those poll results are very interesting and show the very wide extent of the Russian rejection of both the zionazi and nazi western propaganda and rightwing attempts at historical revisionism. This is excellent, and better than I would have expected.

The commentary following the poll results listing, on the other hand, contradicts itself in the usual western rightwing polemic style in its attempt to reinforce the writer’s own rightwing propaganda. IE:

Muscovites are more westernized than others and above all, people who generally gained much with the collapse of the USSR & Muscovites, gladly, agree with the black legend of the USSR

That writer has Muscovites as both being the most westernised and as the most supportive of the USSR. It’s actually the most westernised Russians who condemn the USSR, who supported the Yeltsin quislingship and who now form the opposition pool for the 5th column. The writer is completely twisting reality to fit their rightwing propaganda memes.

With western sources, especially about “the bad guys”, like Russia, or China, even if they are supposedly in praise of these entities, there is usually so much manure surrounding the useful material, one often needs a fire hose to get to that useful material. :D

Bot Tak, I think you misunderstood that sentence, because if you read it twice, you could see that what is saying the author of the article is that Muscovites are who gained much with the collapse of the USSR and agree with the black legend of the USSR. So there is no contradiction in his words to my understanding.
Anyway, it is a translation of mine assisted by google translator, sorry if it is not very accurate, but the meaning of this part is clear, I think.
On the other hand, I seriously doubt that the author is rightwing because the site is very Marxist Stalinist and and I would say openly Bolshevik.
Cheers.

Elsi, It’s a very interesting poll. There was a recent poll of E Germans wherein 82% said they had been happier before reunification. We in the US were fed such a cartoon version of USSR that only those who have done a little reading are able to consider other evaluations.

I favor multi-party, multi-idea electoral based Democratic Republics. Others favor the rule of strong men or strong women, who tolerate no dissent, and degrade human culture.

Macchievelli liked the idea of a strong (hereditary) Prince (but he had to be a good Prince, or the people could get rid of him). Later, the idea of a people choosing their Prince became popular.

In a Democratic Republic the people are legally and morally supreme, serve no masters, but chose representatives to run their government. They may rid themselves of poor officials through regular elections, or Recall elections.

It is difficult for individuals to criticize their own blood, or favorites. It remains difficult (though not impossible) to criticize Obomber to an African American, or for my father to criticize Belgium. Some Americans cannot criticize any governmental, police, or Army leader, no matter their crimes.

Americans, Russians, Germans, Jews, who cannot exercise fair moral judgement of all, including their own family (when necessary), impede human progress. Stalin imprisoned General Rokossovsky, had him tortured, and as the german armies approached Moscow, he, in a panic, short of trained officers to direct his armiees, ordered General Zhukov to free all the thousands of Army officers from the Gulag.

Rokossovsky was awarded command on an Army by Stalin, who had the nerve to ask Rokossovski how he was? Answering through his new iron teeth, Rokossovski replied that he was fine. Stalinism was as unfortunate to Russia as are the post-Kennedy government is to Americans.

It is difficult for individuals to criticize their own blood, or favorites. It remains difficult (though not impossible) to criticize Obomber to an African American, or for my father to criticize Belgium. Some Americans cannot criticize any governmental, police, or Army leader, no matter their crimes.

This is the biggest mistake I see in the USA system — the towns, cities, counties all running their own police and judiciary. It made sense, I guess, in pioneer days when they made small towns in areas that were not even a State, had no name. But now it means laws are enforced by people who are friends or relatives of some residents — and strangers or feel superior to others. And if they misuse their power, there is nobody above them, outside that circle, to complain to. To make matters worse, judges, prosecutors and often police chiefs are ELECTED. Clearly they will pander to and favour the people who elect them.

These positions should be appointed, on merit, from a distant State government, which has to answer to the entire state, not just the local 10,000 people, for the clean behaviour of these services. Ideally they should never be posted to their home town, if it is a small one. And their needs to be an Ombudsman or similar place to complain to, outside the services and without their knowledge, if they do abuse their position.

Thank you Saker for posting such an immensely informative article & thank you Eugenia for translating it. I can’t think when I have learned more. Mr. Ishchenko has shown me that my thinking is not nearly devious enough. I must study this some more to see if I can’t apply its lessons to other situations.

OK, now that I’ve finished reading the article I’m a little shocked. However, I have to say that I think there is an outcome worse than the one Rostislav Ishchenko predicts. I think it might be worse if the status quo became permanent. That is, if Kerry really meant some pretend implementation of Minsk 2. If Ukraine were to remain in the control of the US and it wd be armed w missiles & that w/b intolerable.

I think it wd be the smart move by the US to maintain the status quo, which I suppose they cd do by putting a sensible administration in there and re-starting whatever businesses were supporting the population a year ago. Having missiles deployed there wd be almost a disarming blow. But regardless what Kerry says I agree w the author that US still wants a conflict to drive a wedge between EU & Rus/China. US oligarchs, to have any chance of being the dominant faction in the NWO, must have the conflict.

I was still predicting that Russia cd make it look like a Ukrainian uprising and take more oblasts that way. But is the author right that Russia has to take the whole or nearly whole of Ukraine to end the conflict?

I think the entire ukie society took on a welfare state were you only need to ask to get rich. When asking was not enough they wanted to be like the EU.. Where they saw welfare of $2000-3000 just for sitting home. A lazy people who got conned by the elites who robbed them blind. Where have we seen this before? While we see lots of world class development in Russia itself, where are the ukie projects? I mean the projects people start to make something of themselves. Being next to Europe you would think the opportunities were huge with access to EU markets. Another country which also came into being at almost the very same time but form a far lower base was India which went bankrupt in 91 and had to sell their gold to the bank of England to import food and oil. With no heavy industry and far less developed industrial and even infrastructural base it has pulled itself up to 4th place in the world. Ukraine did not even have to do much to have kept up. We don’t expect a S Korea.. But we can expect some ambition other than wishful thinking. We can clearly see that they have not changed their dreams of being a leech blame others, pick fights, bully everyone and then cry about how they are being singled out for punishment. If I did not know better I would think Russia was responsible but if Russia was supplying oil at 20% of market rates for a decade and most favorable trading terms and buying ukir products I cant see it was Russia that was undermining ukie progress. Remember the AGX’s has for centauries sabotaged progress in other countries so they would not advance. I don’t mean advance as equals, I mean advance enough to have toilets. No wonder I was not surprised to read how the Indian space program is so compartmentalized after they found moles inside who sabotage systems. But you cant have a huge project like that with the process they have. It is not efficient. I bet many projects in a great many countries have to work that way to minimize sabotage by moles who are looking at retiring in Washington or London.

So were the AGX sabotaging ukie progress? I would think there is a lot of truth in that. people in places like india had no choice but to bootstrap themselves for progress. No chance of a handout from anyone. But in Ukraine all these western elites talk about if only you try, you can have a cookie and a mansion. While the elites looted the place dry of everything including the kitchen sink.

Something not mentioned here is how when ukiestan declared independence from the USSR how they tried to be the successor state to the USSR with all the benefits that entails while sticking Russia with the debt and obligations. You can see their resentment after the US refused considering only Russian high command had the nuclear launch codes and only Russia could keep treaties made by the USSR. Yet the prospect of looting the heritage of the USSR is so great to ukies that they have never given up trying just like how they pillaged Crimea.

“It is time for the Empire to return to its natural borders (at the very least, in the south-west).”

I wonder if the Saker could elaborate on this?

Is the author a Russian Imperialist?

Or is it a mistranslation of Federation?

How does this chime with Putin’s avowal of sovereign integrity/will, to be resolved internally?

The Crimea repatriation was a naturally-arising phenomenon as expressed overwhelmingly by referendum. (Whether RF intervention would have taken the form of annex is irrelevant, though the chance of it sitting idly by and losing Sevastopol to NATO is probably zero.)

“Most alarmingly, anti-American sentiment is at its highest peak since reliable polling of Russians began in the mid-1980s. According to a March Levada survey, 73 percent of respondents had a “negative” attitude toward the US, up from 56 percent a year earlier.”

I strongly feel that the second word alarmingly should actually be replaced by cheering. The whole article lightens me up as a firm testimony to Russia finally taking retribution on her “partners”. If Russia annexes Banderastan (save the Galician sewer), I’ll hoist the Russian flag immediately for everyone to see!

Ishchenko alternates between decent analysis and Orthodox fascist paranoid fantasy.At the moment, Russia is losing massively. It is in danger of being stuck with the ethnics in the Donbass as Ukraine shuts them out and gets on with life. The foreigners in the Ukraine government mean business when it comes to reform. Poland 2 is coming. Putin has always been as terrible at foreign policy as he has been brilliant domestically. He launched a customs blockade of Ukraine and thus lost Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Azerbaijan. Also, two aircraft carriers, a recession that is just going to gather strength, any hope of capital investment in the Russian economic (don’t make me laugh about China – go look at Africa) and big divisions in his government team. Even war hysteria wears off. Look at Thatcher or Bush. He gained Sevastapol, irrelevant if you don;t also hold Ukraine. When Russia attacked Bessarabia Sevastapol was a threat to the Royal Navy. Talk about fighting the last war!

Russia has an economy the size of Italy’s but at a much lower level of technical development. If Russia was to launch an aggressive war against Ukraine even by proxy it would stuck in the 1970’s for another 30 years. Xi has made speeches about Unequal Treaties. How long could a Russia weakened by self isolation hold on to its occupied Chinese territories. (Current relations with China are entirely transactioinal and its Russian money getting spent first: building pipelines and buying trains.)

Looking at several of your posts here, I have to ask, what planet are you on?

What “occupied Chinese territories” does Russia have, to hold on to?

Where do you get Russia has a low level of technical development? (we’re talking a country that has nuclear weapons, is world leader in civilian nuclear usage; that has an active space program, makes 100s of aircraft annually including civilian airliners etc).

Please start providing links to show back up your claims, as they are starting to sound a bit far-fetched.

Typical Western supremacist — entitled not only to his/her own opinions (strictly speaking, just parroting tripe) but also to his/her own facts. As for the notion “Orthodox fascist paranoid fantasy”, I’ll take that any day over nostrums of Western infallibility and invincibility.

Agree with the sentiment – very good news for Putin, and great to see the Russians have a strong sense unity and purpose: seems like the more they get ‘pounded’ (‘dollared’?) by the US/EU, the more Russian they feel! So much for morale-sapping political initiatives..:)

But I am wary of any – real or apparent – attempt to annex the Ukraine: make no bones about it, that’s how it would be played. It is exactly that gambit that’s been used to justify the sanctions.

My own ideal is to see the Ukraine adopt Novorossiya ideals/values, whether it takes the form of federalisation politically, or the form of a republic, with largely autonomous cantons along the lines of the Swiss model. Whether that emerges through the South-East consolidating to defeat Banderastan Nazism, or a top-down Minsk ‘Normandy Four (with Porky replaced with someone at least marginally sane ) diplomatic/political solution, or a combination of both, I don’t think it matters.

Militarily, the territory of the Ukraine would be best as a Russian ‘protecterate’ : Russia prevents nuclear Nazis from gaining control and NATO – the military arm of transnational looting of state resources – would be neutralized.

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.